Digital technology offers new possibilities for children to play, express themselves, learn, and communicate. A recent development in online practice is a shift toward youth engaged in computer programming online communities. Programming is argued to be the new literacy of the millennium. In this article, I examine the use of Scratch, an online programming community, as a means to support digital literacy for early adolescent gifted, talented, and creative students. In addition, I share the experiences of an early adolescent gifted student with Scratch and consider the use of Scratch to promote interdisciplinary curricular concepts.
BanduraA. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy and adolescents (pp. 1-43). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.
2.
BealsL. M. (2010). Content creation in virtual worlds to support adolescent identity development. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 45-53.
3.
BrennanK.Monroy-HernandezA.ResnickM. (2010). Making projects, making friends: Online community as catalyst for interactive media creation. New Directions for Youth Development, 128, 75-83.
4.
BurkeQ. (2012). The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4, 121-135.
5.
BurkeQ.O’ByrneI.KafaiY. (2016). Computational participation: Understanding coding as an extension of literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 371-375.
6.
Cavazos-KottkeS. (2006). Five readers browsing: The reading interests of talented middle school boys. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 132-147.
7.
CoiroJ. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
CopeB.KalantzisM. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164-195.
10.
CoxonS. V. (2012). Innovative allies: Spatial and creative abilities. Gifted Child Today, 35, 277-284.
11.
Eshet-AlkalaiY.ChajutE. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 173-181.
12.
Eshet-AlkalaiY.SofferO. (2012). Guest Editorial—Navigating in the digital era: Digital literacy: Socio-cultural and educational aspects. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 1.
13.
FincherS.UttingI. (2010). Machines for thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), Article 13.
14.
HutchisonA.NadolnyL.EstapaA. (2016). Using coding apps to support literacy instruction and develop coding literacy. The Reading Teacher, 69, 493-503.
15.
JenkinsH.KelleyW. (2013). Reading in a participatory culture. New York: NY, Teachers College Press.
16.
JewittC. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267.
17.
KafaiY. B.BurkeQ. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
KalantzisM.CopeB. (2012). New learning: A charter for change in education. Critical Studies in Education, 53, 83-94.
19.
KrauseM. (2013). “A series of unfortunate events”: The repercussions of print-literacy as the only literacy for talented boys. Gifted Child Today, 36, 237-245. doi:10.1177/1076217513501805
LeeY. (2011). Scratch: Multimedia programming environment for young gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 26-31.
22.
MaloneyJ.ResnickM.RuskN.SilvermanB.EastmondE. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), Article 16.
23.
MillsK. (2011). “I’m making it different to the book”: Transmediation in young children’s multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 56-65.
24.
MooreD. C. (2013). Bringing the world to school: Integrating news and media literacy in elementary classrooms. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 5, 326-336.
O’BrienB.Friedman-NimzR.LoceyJ.DensonD. (2005). From bits and bytes to C++ and web sites: What is computer talent made of?Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 56-64.
28.
OlthouseJ. (2013). Multiliteracies theory and gifted education: Creating “smart places” in the language arts classroom. Gifted Child Today, 36, 247-253. doi:10.1177/1076217513497575
29.
PepplerK.KafaiY. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 149-166.
30.
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.Monroy-HernandezA.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.. . . KafaiY. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
31.
SchraderC.BastiaensT. J. (2012). Educational computer games and learning: The relationship between design, cognitive load emotions and outcomes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23, 252-271.
32.
ShirkyC. (2010). Cognitive surpluses: Creativity and generosity in the connected age. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
ThomsonD. L. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 662-712.
35.
TraylorS. (2008). Scratch that: MIT’s Mitchel Resnick says kids should do it for themselves. Technology and Learning, 29, 27-28.
36.
UttingI.CooperS.KöllingM.MaloneyJ.ResnickM. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch—A discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1-11.
37.
YangY. C.ChangC. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334-344.
